Gold ornaments brought by a traveller were not automatically liable to confiscation absent smuggling intent.

Personal gold ornaments carried by a returning traveller were treated as inconsistent with smuggling where the quantity and surrounding circumstances did not support an intent to evade customs controls. The note rejects the view that any undeclared quantity of gold automatically warrants confiscation, stating that such an approach is an incorrect understanding of the law and rules. On those facts, confiscation, redemption fine and personal penalty were considered unjustified and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the gold ornaments, along with redemption fine and personal penalty, was justified on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant was a college student returning from the UAE with personal gold ornaments on her body. The quantity and circumstances were held inconsistent with an attempt to smuggle the ornaments into India. The view that any undeclared quantity of gold necessarily warranted confiscation was found to be an incorrect understanding of the law and rules.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and personal penalty were set aside as unjustified.

---